The Undertaker...

[Kiffy]

I'm kinda shocked to see Cena being put in a tier above taker. He's been on top for a few years, but taker was on top for a good decade or so before he even wrestled. Blokes been main eventing and consistently amazingly over for over two decades, who else can come close to that?

Hogan can, but rock and austin were out after a few years on top, granted they drew more and were bigger than taker at that time, but they only managed it for, what, 3-4 years each?

I can see an argument for austin and rock going above him, but I can't see an argument for anyone else, and I don't think Cena can come close, not to say he couldn't if he's still going strong 10 or 15 years from now, but to put him in above taker now is just ridiculous.

[Teedy Kay]

Do the standard name recognition test, call your mum and ask her to name 5 wrestlers.

 

My mother's five were:

 

Luke and Butch The Bushwhackers

The Undertaker

Hulk Hogan

British Bulldog

[Vamp]

All the above lists of greats are stupid. It goes:

 

1) Hogan, Horace

2) Everyone else

[King Pitcos]

I agree with Pitcos regarding the Triple H vs HBK/Bret bit. Definitely think he's more recognised by those on the outside. I'm not sure why though, may just simply be people remember him because it was generally him knocking about with The Rock for the most part. And that he's been around at the top forever now. He's surely had much more mainstream crossover in general too. A bunch of reasons then really, but 'the others' are definitely more aware of him then Bret and Shawn.

 

I think it's just as simple as the only people with strong memories of Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart are wankers like us who were wrestling fans in the shit mid-90s period. They weren't really established during the initial wave of popularity (at least not to the point of being on pencil cases and posters and all that, the way Hogan, Warrior, Savage etc were) and they were both gone (apart from Michaels' odd forgettable appearance) by the time everyone started watching it again. Even before him and Rock were on top of the world, Triple H was leading DX during their most popular run. There wasn't a market in the country not selling knock-off DX posters in late 1998.

[Loki]

I don't think mainstream recognition should count for anything in these arguments.

 

It's all that counts. We're not talking "who's your fave", we're talking who are the biggest stars, the way I interpret it anyway. One of the reasons that the WWE were so keen to get Rock wrestle at WM was that his mainstream fame would pull in people who otherwise might not bother with the WWE. It's the old Rock and Wrestling Connection, the thing that made WWF the huge international business that it became.

 

I may think that Bugge Wesseltoft is a better musician than, say, 50 Cent but I'd be a fool to argue that he's a bigger star.

 

Hogan gets his own reality tv show; he gets his own grill and a rapturous reception from even the most jaded British wrestling crowd. The Rock gets big movie deals, appearances on The Tonight Show sitting alongside Tom Cruise or whoever. Stone Cold gets to ham it up next to Sylvester Stallone. Cena, right now at least, is the face of wrestling and is everywhere certainly in the States.

 

Bret Hart could probably walk in civvies unrecognised down the street of most cities in the world outside Canada and parts of the US.

[King Pitcos]

I'm kinda shocked to see Cena being put in a tier above taker. He's been on top for a few years, but taker was on top for a good decade or so before he even wrestled. Blokes been main eventing and consistently amazingly over for over two decades, who else can come close to that?

Undertaker has very rarely, if ever, been the man. There are very few times (if any) when he has been the centrepiece of the company the way Cena is and the way Hogan, Austin, Rock, or even Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels were. The thing Undertaker has done is stuck at that main-event-but-not-the-man level far longer than Savage, Warrior, Batista and co ever could.

[moofasa]

Surely that just goes to show the names are varied becuase they rememeber who they saw at the time. They are all presented as stars and casual fans remebering doesn't give you an indication of anything. Are top three start from 1985 because this is what we know. It depends how you're comparing them.

 

As with HHH being more recognisable it depends if your talking to someone who has watched usually in their childhood between 98 and now. Or someone more my age group who watched between 88-95.

 

I think you would still be surprised by the amount of people in this country who think wrestling, think Big Daddy. Wrestling was in the mainsteam up until 88 on ITV every Saturday and WoS is ingrained in a couple of generations of Britain. His name still usually crops up at some point in mainstream tv interviews with WWE stars to this day.

[Big Jock Knew]

To me, The Undertaker's legacy leaves him in a league of his own. At least concerning wrestling fans, that is. And I'd say it's far more important to consider our view of 'Taker than that of the layman on the street who hasn't bothered with wrestling for years.

 

It's fair enough to bracket Stone Cold, Hulk Hogan and The Rock into the 'top tier' because their images have somewhat transcended wrestling and the three of them are just kind of famous in their own right. But if you look at the history of Undertaker's career; he has always been relevant, maybe excluding mid-late 2001 when he was getting a bit of a gut and having shit matches on a regular basis. So what did he do to sort that out? He got a haircut, hit the gym and turned heel. Within months he was the WWE Champion again. To me, that's part of the reason he has succeeded so much. He is able to recognise when he is on the cusp of becoming stale or irrelevant and he gets it sorted. Look at the tail-end of 1998 into 1999 for another example of that.

 

A buzz has always surrounded Undertaker and I think he particularly became really cool once his character deviated from the lumbering, zombie style he was working and he got to demonstrate what he could do in the ring. For my money, there has never been as good a big man worker and I struggle to think there ever will be. He had to endure years in the mid-90s of not being able to perform the Tombstone and had to contend with a lot of dross feuds. But the sheen never wore off his gimmick, and it's great that he managed to have an Indian summer in-ring. His run of WrestleMania matches in the last decade has been absolutely superb and he has produced great bouts on other cards consistently.

 

I'm gushing a bit like a fanboy here but I definitely believe that The Undertaker is amongst the best ever. I would never speak ill of him, Bret Hart or Stone Cold Steve Austin but I think I love 'Taker so much because his character has always been divorced from the other members of the roster. He has always been a big deal, even through the rise of Bret, Michaels, Austin, Rock, Triple H, Cena etc. He's the man.

[mim731]

All the above lists of greats are stupid. It goes:

 

1) Hogan, Horace

2) Everyone else

 

 

Everyone fears the Horacebomb. Hence why they're not mentioning him, but we know all know who the real draw was in WCW. Horace for life!

[Kiffy]

I'm kinda shocked to see Cena being put in a tier above taker. He's been on top for a few years, but taker was on top for a good decade or so before he even wrestled. Blokes been main eventing and consistently amazingly over for over two decades, who else can come close to that?

Undertaker has very rarely, if ever, been the man. There are very few times (if any) when he has been the centrepiece of the company the way Cena is and the way Hogan, Austin, Rock, or even Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels were. The thing Undertaker has done is stuck at that main-event-but-not-the-man level far longer than Savage, Warrior, Batista and co ever could.

 

Warrior had wwf centred around him for a while, granted it was a disaster but it did happen.

And Cena hasn't by any means been a constant centrepiece, he's stepped aside for hhh/hbk stuff, randy orton stuff, probably more. On top of which, despite being positioned as no1 baby face, I'd say he's never been as over as Taker, in all the times he's been put there.

That alone shows he's not on taker's level, to my mind.

[King Pitcos]

Cena hasn't by any means been a constant centrepiece

[Kiffy]

Now now, granted he's been pushed as top babyface for years. But, he's regularly played seccond fiddle to bigger feuds and storyline arcs. He's been the centrepiece far more than anyone else over the last few years, of course, but to say he's alwas been the centrepiece is way off.

And you know it.

I even gave examples of the stuff that's been pushed as the centrepiece, which you cut out of the cute to do the little cena laughing pic.

[Max Power]

Undertaker has never been the man. Even in his highest profile feud against Austin, he played second fiddle in it to Vince. There was always a higher profile feud going off, even in his prime - be it Austin/Rock, Austin/McMahon, Bret/Shawn, HHH/HBK etc.

 

On the other hand, Cena has been on top for the past 6 years at least without major exception. 99% of major feuds have involved him. Orton/HHH/Nexus/Punk/Batista. They all targeted Cena.

 

EDIT: I'm sure someone will explain that better than my attempt.

[Kiffy]

Oh I'll grant that Cena has generally been more of a centrepiece than Taker. Whether you can say Taker's never been the man, despite his various championship runs and stuff, that sounds kinda wrong. But the point that Cena's been more of a centrepiece than Taker over the last few years, that can't be argued.

But, Taker has been way more over than him the last few years, and was more over than Cena's ever got for well over a decade before it. Despite WWE placing Cena as the centrepiece for as long as they have, the fact taker's stayed way more over than him right through it, that's gotta mean more in terms of his placing on any best of all time list.

Hasn't it?

[tiger_rick]

I don't think mainstream recognition should count for anything in these arguments.

 

It's all that counts. We're not talking "who's your fave", we're talking who are the biggest stars, the way I interpret it anyway.

I'm not misunderstanding the question. It's who's the biggest wrestling star though, not who's the biggest mainstream star. Otherwise the answer is The Rock, end of argument.

 

Hulk Hogan & Steve Austin are the biggest stars in modern wrestling. Not because they were mainstream stars but because they were responsible for wrestling being mainstream, for masses of people watching wrestling.